Water conservation district to drop plans for strict rules on water use

Water district leaders will abandon the most controversial of the proposed rules that riled the region for the past month.

Water district leaders will abandon the most controversial of the proposed rules that riled the region for the past month.

Staff and board members of the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 said they would drop proposals to ban new well drilling, to place fast-declining areas of their 16-county region under tougher restrictions than others and to speed into limits on water that growers, cities and industry could draw from the Ogallala Aquifer.

The board had taken no vote on the rules before the weekend, but individual interviews suggested those most menacing limits on the aquifer would vanish. A new “final draft” of rules could hit the region by June.

It could include provisions allowing users to conserve water in one year and use more in the next, as well as slowly phasing limits on how much water Texans tapping the aquifer may use each year. Farmers said this would let them use water more efficiently, rather than pumping the maximum allowed every year.

Landowners, for their part, seemed more and more interested in meters, though wary of equipment that could cost some farms as much as $50,000. Most who traveled to hearings in Dimmit, Plainview, Lubbock, Littlefield and Hereford asked for the district to slow down.

“I urge you guys not to rush into this,” said Brett Bamert of Muleshoe. “We’ve been pumping out of the aquifer for 80 years. Three more months isn’t going to do much.”

It’s hard to picture the five locally elected regulators of the district board as a bunch of bomb throwers. Most are retirees. All are conservative, deliberative West Texans with ties to agriculture. At least three work active farming operations.

But the board members lobbed an incendiary 48-page rule book into their 16-county region about a month ago, immediately drawing the attention of growers, cattlemen and their suppliers who faced watching their livelihoods burn up under a dry Texas sun.

The massive water formation, stretching from south of Lubbock to Nebraska, feeds billions of dollars of interconnected agribusiness, industry and their customers across the Texas Panhandle. The district must set rules to preserve 50 percent of the aquifer in 50 years, a goal set by the region under a state-required process started more than five years ago.

Where technical and plodding planning efforts to produce that goal drew perhaps 50 to a meeting, discussion of the proposed drilling moratorium and water pumping restrictions needed to reach the goal drew as many as 500 people a day last week. Landowners and renters flooded the district with drilling permit applications, creating a seven-week backlog. Growers gave worried, at times furious comment during five public meetings on the rules.

And then, after the last meeting Friday morning, it appeared the district’s ink and paper grenade was made of rubber.

When asked if the board ever intended to pass the draconian rules as written, district general manager Jim Conkwright said the rules did represent the most blunt and severe means of preserving 50 percent of the aquifer over 50 years. But the board knew gentler ways to accomplish the same.

“We have created controversy — if it has been detrimental, we are sorry,” Conkwright told a capacity crowd in Plainview. “But our goal has been accomplished. We have heard you loud and clear.”

The region has played host to high-level discussions from top lawyers and scientists, but no meetings in memory drew the crowds of Texans dependent on the Ogallala’s water. Landowners and renters, most of them farmers, spoke for hours.

Demands for fairness, equity and time dominated most of the discussions. Most who spoke rejected a proposal to focus regulations first on farmers who depended on the fastest-vanishing pockets of the aquifer.

Many of those areas, in Parmer, Castro and portions of Hale County, had pumped so much because there was enough to pump. Businesses had paid a premium for the land, and shutting off their access to the water could threaten their ability to pay for it, some growers warned.

“It’s not fair or reasonable to designate one group of farmers as the reservoir or the reserve for the entire district,” said Jimmy Wedel, a grower outside of Muleshoe.

Farmers there compete with Lubbock and with Xcel Energy, which draws from the aquifer for steam that, in turn, powers the farmers’ irrigation equipment across the Panhandle.

Oil and gas rigs, which use water for drilling and recovery and are monitored by the Texas Railroad Commission, drew deep suspicion as well. Many insisted the district not punish the growers who formed the bulk of the district to keep water for non-agricultural uses.

Growers and their commodity groups pointed to flaws in rule language the district pledged to fix that some worried would give Lubbock greater access to water in Bailey County than nearby farmers.

The city draws almost 20 percent of its water, most of it during the summer, from fields installed in that county in the 1950s.

Families who depend on the aquifer for their livelihoods grumbled about the careless use of the resource on lawns and trickling down streets inside city limits.

Property rights arguments drew applause at meetings, and a minority seemed interested in throwing the board out entirely.

“Farming is a private enterprise,” said Chuck Dorrity of Lubbock. “We knew the risks when we bought the land, and we should be able to use as much water as we want to.”

If the tax-supported district wanted the region to conserve, it could pay farmers not to pump, Kurt Stammon said.

Texas law has for decades given the district the authority to impose the limits it laid out, though nothing prevented growers from challenging them in court, and more than one speaker suggested that’s where the district was headed with its rules.

At the ballot box, a majority of the board went up for re-election in November, but voters kept all directors in November save one, who had retired and never sought another term.

State Rep. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, had received phone calls from some constituents about the proposed rules.

He urged them to go to the meetings and participate, and considered the process healthy, he said Friday.

“You’re dealing with the only thing we have to have, as a region, to survive,” Perry said. “We are at a crossroads where the things we put in place, going forward, are going to determine the viability of the region.”

And that seemed to be the attitude of the majority who turned up, and focused more on shaping the rules into something that would still provide a living and give no neighbor an unfair loophole to drain the other.

Ogallala water can shift sideways, up to 5 feet a year, in some locations. Such a fluid bit of property could mean one farmer’s preservation was a neighbor’s extra supply, without rules. Growers had banded together to form the district decades ago to settle such problems.

“I’ve got young kids,” said Kelly Kettner, outside Muleshoe. “I want them to farm. I just think there’s some things we can do to make it fair across the district.”

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

I think the attitude of most of the farming community was reflected in the comment that "we should be able to use as much water as we want to." Every water usage study that has been done notes that most of the water in this area is used for agricultural purposes. Even if Lubbock and the surrounding towns stopped using water entirely it would reduce overall usage by only a drop in the bucket. Further, too many farms waste water by inefficient irrigation methods or simply by allowing water runoff. It appears that the moaning of the farmers worked and the Conservation District folded and didn't impose strict water usage rules. However, I can look forward to a nasty letter if I inadvertently let water escape from my front yard, or see my water bill go up if I take too many baths.

I agree that regulations should be in place, ie; meters.however, farmers do not waste anymore than city slickers. They have to pay for the fuel to pump water, which is very expensive, so they watch where it goes. And what they do pump is for the economy, unlike the water I see running down the gutters in town everytime I go up there. The water I see in the gutters is runoff from watering lawns so they can be pretty and green. I have not watered our lawn in many years because we hare running out of water. Our water table has dropped over 60% in the last 10 years. The aquiafer is not replenishing it's self like it did in the past because we do not receive as much rain and there are too much pumping being done. BOTTOMLINE If it is not regulated, we will not have windmill water!!

My Grandfather drilled one of the first irrigation wells in Lamb County. Now, from wells that once pumped 800 gallons per minute, we see only 150.

This is a very emotional issue. The city people blame the farmer and the farmers would like to see the city people have some awareness of the importance of conservation, i.e., water wasting landscapes that were never intended for this bio-region. I have seen business establishments in Lubbock sprinkling water on a 3 ft wide strip of grass with most of the water running into the parking lot and benefiting only the Grackles that come for a drink of water and deposit their biological waste on your $50,000 SUV (which then goes to the automatic car wash). Perhaps cities could encourage water conservation by giving property owners a tax break for such water saving practices as rainwater harvesting and xeriscaping.

I attended the meeting in Plainview. I did not see anyone from a municipality address the board. There was no input from a municipality or industrial point of view with the exception of Excel Energy. Any rule changes are supposedly going to apply to all. That means municipalities, industry, etc.

Most of the testimony revolved around "give us more time". After 80
years of taking as much as we can get, it is my opinion that we have had enough time. I see new holes being punched all around my farm and it is not slowing down. I believe having 50 percent
of the aquifer left in 50 years sounds good but it is far too optimistic.

Additionally, I only heard the word "recharge" mentioned one time. The Ogallalla Aguifer is a National Treasure, underlying 7 states, and should be considered as such. I recently read an article that the Defense Department is spending as much as the entire GDP of Australia on a new fighter plane. If we can do that, if we can send a man to the moon, then surly we can discover a safe, reliable method of recharging this resource. Also, a better awareness of the playa lakes importance in our ecosystem should be promoted and taught in our schools.

The time for action on the part of all the citizens of High Plains Region is NOW. Everyone living here is a Stakeholder.

I've lived in this area nearly all my life, and I've heard every excuse from the agricultural community to justify wasteful irrigation methods and how they should use all the water they want because of food and fiber crop production. Horse-pooky. Sure, city-dwellers also have to be concerned about wasting water, and the city/county government is taking baby steps for any kind of enforcement, but the great bulk of use and waste comes from the farms. This time of year I also watch blowing topsoil coming from a few counties southwest of Lubbock that don't plant cover crops, so much for conservation consciousness. I'll think about farm use again when I get a lawn subsidy for growing grass.

This is really such a large issue that it is hard to find a beginning point.

You may look and this and think it's too long to read. However, you are reading the words of a farmer and someone who has real experience in what is going on with our aquifer. Not just someone spewing gossip and opinions. What you are about to read is FACT.

First off, I'm tired of this argument, "Every water usage study that has been done notes that most of the water in this area is used for agricultural purposes"-

DUHHHH, as well as every economic study that has been done notes that most of the economy in this area relies on agricultural. The Lubbock Chamber itself stresses the importance of irrigation on the regional economy. The lubbock chamber states that AT LEAST 40% of ALL economic activity for Lubbock relates DIRECTLY back to agriculture. (This doesn't include the money spent by people who have a job due to increased revenues of business where farmers do business.) There are 210,000 farmers in the United States who supply over 60,000,000 (20%) people with jobs. If it averages out to be 20% nationwide, then what percent of jobs do you all think agriculture provides here in Lubbock?

Secondly, I would like to address the comment of "we won't have windmill water" if regulation isn't imposed. This is in fact FALSE. Our aquifer does in fact recharge. However, we are using out of it faster than it recharges. We will never run out of drinking water and truth be told, we will never run out of irrigation water. The days of 1,000 gallon wells are over. Yet, with new technologies we have learned to grow more crop on less water. Why do so many of you think that we farmers pump water for the hell of it? It cost us anywhere from 7 to 21 dollars worth of electricity to apply one inch to one acre. (Depending on static water level) This doesn't include the maintenance cost of pumps that cost thousands of dollars, the pivot system that cost apprx. 65,000 dollars, or the time and fuel that it takes to get around and check on all of these systems twice a day. I farm in Lamb county and particularly in the southern region of this county, we experienced a major aquifer draw down from 1995 to 2003. The same type of draw down that is now being experienced in Northern Lamb and Southern Castro. I have seen this movie before and let me tell you how it ends. THE STATIC WATER LEVEL OF THE OGALLALA STABILIZES. We have not had to readjust the nozzeling of a pivot in 8 years. The static water level has usually fallen a few feet by august but it returns completely by March of the next year. You see when a well pumped a 1,000 gallons, we were pumping water out much faster than it could be replenished. Now, some wells will only pump 30 gallons. What we have done to overcome the problem (the best we can) is drill more wells. Some farms have 10 or more wells on them for a combined total of 350 gallons. It is at this level that we have maintained a consistent static water level for the last 8 years.

And finally the one that just really makes me chuckle - "This time of year I also watch blowing topsoil coming from a few counties southwest of Lubbock that don't plant cover crops, so much for conservation consciousness." -

ARE YOU KIDDING ME, YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHAT HAPPENS WITH OUT IRRIGATION WHILE PREACHING ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD BE REGULATED. Do you think farmers enjoy watching their topsoil blow off?!?! Do you think we are that stupid?!?! The reason they do not plant a cover crop southwest of Lubbock is because it's dryland. AKA NO WATER TO SPROUT OR MAINTAIN A COVER CROP. This is something you should all get very used to seeing every direction from Lubbock if we are regulated. Doesn't anyone realize that if irrigation had been around there would be no story about a dust bowl in our history books?!?!?!?! What you have here is conservation cannibalizing itself. If you conserve water like the district is talking about, you can get used to seeing soil conservation going by the way side because we (the farmers) won't use those valuable inches to grow it. You might want to by a new broom too, those porches in Lubbock can catch a lot of dust.

Now there's an original and unique thing for a poster on this site to say!

Come on, guy. Every mother's son on this website thinks his words ---and his alone--- are the gospel from on high. Give me some reason why I should believe you are the one and only custodian of the one and only truth, and I might go back and read the rest of your post.

It's fact because I'm out here farming. Living this every day, seeing it, paying for it, trying to make it better. Not working in a basement or pushing a pencil for some fat boss somewhere pissed off at my own life and forming opinions without knowledge or experience to back them up. I don't sit and form opinions on nuclear energy, offshore drilling, or regulation of banks by the feds and all the other things I know nothing about. Because of that, I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THEM. This story is agriculture and agriculture is what I sleep, eat, and breathe. None of what was written there is made up.

I was raised on a farm and have an extended family still farming in the High Plains water district. From the concerns I have heard raised about the method the water district had proposed, not one of them was invalid. There are no farmers in this district that are not concerned about the water level of the aquifer. There are no farmers in this district that pump more water than they need to grow their crops in a profitable manner. There are no farmers in this district that are against the water being regulated. They are only concerned about how the water district will regulate them. If the regulations in the document as proposed were to go forward, many of these farmers would not be able to farm because they would owe far more than they could make. The water in Texas is owned by the landowner as far as underground water is concerned. There are provisions for a board to regulate it, but....but it also states that if the board regulates them in a fashion as to take away value from their land, they must be compensated. With the debt Texas now has and all the citizens screaming don't cut education, what do you think might happen when Texas has to pay all these landowners for the difference. Talk about a deficit!
Texas has also been fortunate to not have the unemployment of some states in these hard economic times. It has been estimated (in a Texas Tech study go google and read instead of argue) that if these regulations as written were enforced that within 10 years there would be a loss of over 16,000 jobs. Folks there aren't 16,000 farmers. These are jobs that have any reliance on agriculture in any form and it might be your job. Since most of the population in this area is in Lubbock, you would assume most of these jobs would be lost here.
The farmers only want the regulations implemented in slowly as to not lose viability of farms and they want to make the regulations equal to all who use the water, not punish those that have paid dearly for their land because it is above a better part of the aquifer.

Those on the water board have never metered the use of the water for irrigation. They can only make a somewhat educated guess. How can they suddenly impose restrictions for usage when they don't really know what this usage is. How do they think they are going to punish one area of farmers by restricting at a higher rate and let Lubbock use water from Bailey county unrestricted and those landowners from Bailey county profiting from this Lubbock water usage. Let the water board find an economically feasible way to regulate and a fair way to regulate before the only ones profiting from this are the lawyers filing suit for all of them.

I beg to differ with your opinion about never running out of water for irrigation. We ran out out of water in the 80's in Northern Terry , Northern Lynn, and Southern Hockley Countys and had to stop irrigation. We had already ran dry in Western Lubbock County.
Some of this land is still in cultivation (dryland), but most is in CRP grass to keep it from blowing away!
@Raised on a Farm;
I have not seen one red cent from the state for our water table going to 0!! The land is worth a lot less now that we do not even have windmill water.
The way it is now, it can't be graised in fear of no rainfall to maintain the grass and water for the cows would have to be hauled.
Just because you were raised on a farm does not mean you know anything about one. How many acres do you own now??
I am still live on a farm (60+years) and involved in farming in three counties! Farming is still my life too Dustbowl.....

The state did not impose restrictions on you and cause your land to devalue. That is the only way you would have been compensated. My family is farming over 10,000 acres right now but I do not farm any. I only listen, pay attention and research things.

I have seen and heard many comments about the regulation of Ogallala water in Texas. My question would be how is Texas going to regulate the other states that use the same water we do? If the same regs are not put in place for them then our farms will dry up and they will still be in business.

I am an advocate of water conservation as there is no more being made. What we got is all we're gonna get! Farmers pay for every drop they get out of the ground. Wells are expensive to install, run, and maintain. Along with controlling the loss we should be working hard to use better technology for the application of water.

What has happened recently? Remember China>>> they built the "three gorges dam", and it caused problems everywhere. First off, all the water in one area is so heavy that it caused earthquakes and also caused flooding in some areas. Good and bad benefits to capturing this much water.

What has happened here in America? Dams are build and so are lakes to capture water. I don't have an X-ray machine to see through the dirt, but if one existed, I am sure you could see how underwater flows are affected.

So many people being experts on water but I don't see the Pacific or Atlantic running out of water. The Mississippi and the Rio Grande keep flowing. Heck, the Great Lakes are still>>> Great.

I say focus on your water usage and let the farmers focus on theirs. Truthfully, a stupid farmer would use up all his water and then he would go broke because his crops would fail. I have not met too many stupid farmers who have no water>> there are dry land farmers who rely on rain.

Water credits are a tax as were the green credits the green house wackos were selling. HIDDEN TAX, that is all it is. The government wants your money and if you are foolish, you will want a water usage bill.

Dust Bowl, You have some excellent points. However, the water level is not going to stay static if T Boone or the cities decide that they want it all. I know a man that paid for several sections of land by selling his water rights to the City of Lubbock. Great for him and the City of Lubbock but not so great for his neighbors.

Dust Bowl, You have some excellent points. However, the water level is not going to stay static if T Boone or the cities decide that they want it all. I know a man that paid for several sections of land by selling his water rights to the City of Lubbock. Great for him and the City of Lubbock but not so great for his neighbors. You mentioned that someone may not have their wells deep enough. Sir, my wells are down to the Red Bed and the water level is lower each year.

First off I just want to clarify that I didn't intend to be derogatory by saying ignorant. I use it more as it was intended to be used, (lack of knowledge on one subject)

And you're right, those areas may not maintain their static level where wells are pumping 365 days a year. I do not disagree that something should be done. Particularly in those areas and for the reason of protecting the farmers. However, in areas where this is not going on, we are maintaining our static water level. I do not know the facts yet but I have heard of the static level actually rising in a few places around the district. In normal farming areas where wells aren't running day in day out this is a bunch of unnecessary added cost for farmers who are already up against the wall. Farming is one of the few industries in the world that's price can be neither named nor controlled.

Geez, the HPWD is calling for 1,000 validation fee for them to say, "you can legally pump water from this well." That is simply a bogus tax. In 2005 when the state said we were to have a plan, it wasn't about conservation, it was about expanding government.

On your static level continually falling, you must be by the land that Lubbock has the water rights to?

What part of DRY don't you understand??
New holes were drilled in each county with no results.
I watched a pecan farm dryup and die because of no water west of Wolfforth in Lubbock county! Don't want to go deep enough to hit saltwater like they did in Pacos. The last hole that was drilled in Hockley county could be bailed dry in 10 minites. (2005)
@Raised on a Farm;
I did not think you were actively involved in farming. Just talking........

This debate has been ongoing for years and little has changed. Just a little insight on future debates, The Ogallala is a multi-state aquifer and could be regulated by the U.S. Corp of Engineers (interstate commerce). Plans were developed in the 60s to encourage people (especially farmers) to conserve water. First recommendation was education, second was a "carrot"..i.e., low interest loans to finance water saving devices ( surge valves, LEPA & etc.). Are you getting the picture? Years ahead, expect the carrot to turn to a "stick".. Its the attitude, to borrow from a commercial, "Its my water and I need it now" which could lead to major changes in water conservation. But all is not lost, the Ogallala will be recharged, at the end of the next ice age..Yes, you are pumping ice age water, right now..

I really do tire of condescending, know it all attitudes. Most people do realize that we are pumping fossil water. So, if the the Corps of Engineers can regulate it. Why would it be so unthinkable that they could not safely recharge it.

Well, I just thought the Corps of Engineers would probably be most likely to take on such a project. I don't see any private enterprise stepping up to the plate to do anything but rape it. The Corps is building dams all over the country to provide water for the cities and if they do have the authority to regulate it, then, I would like to see them put some back instead of taking it all "for the common good". Which I understand is the direction that Austin is taking us. Otherwise, why don't we just divide Texas into two States with using a boundry line of the 100th meridian. We will keep our water and Dallas and Austin can go to hell.

anti-communist. Creating a public interest or a communal interest so that every Tom, Dick or Harry can sue farmers is a very bad idea.

Saving 50% in fifty years? For what?
Market forces in the form of pumping costs will limit how much farmers use on crops. Those pumping costs will go up more because of rate payer increases passed through to subsidize wind electricity, a very serious threat to agriculture, not to mention wind is an unsustainable joke, a very sick joke at that.

It's not just this region that relies upon agriculture, the whole country's safety relies upon our current sustainable method of farming because farming funds the heavy industry that history proves every nation needs to become and remain a world power.

Wealth is created by the development of natural resources. Those natural resources include water, animals, coal, iron ore and nuclear. By stopping such wealth creation, we cannot maintain our national security.

A farmer's voluminous use of water supplies thousands of people. A household's water use in the City supports only a very few. If water is so cheap that people can wash their cars, run water out on the ground to water Bermuda grass and fill luxurious swimming pools, then there is no water problem.

Killing the Hidden Waters by Charles Bowden, and Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit by Vandana Shiva, and The Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water by Marc Reisner, and more .....

If you think running out of oil is going to be a disaster, just wait until we begin to run out of water.

The cost of pumping and the regulation is not going to mean anything if we continue the way we are going.
There will not be any water to pump. As I stated earlier, the water level has dropped 60% (of what was left) in the last 10 years where we are, and as you know, Texas is on the shallow end of the aquifer. Therefore, we will go dry first. This is not news to me. I am fully aware of this. I have been saying this since the 80's when we lost most of our wells.
@btxusa
You know my opinion on this subject from the past.

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." Jonathan Swift "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." Groucho Marx